Tawus, so there is no meaning in his statement. Zihar is valid as time-bound, due to the lack of effect of the time-limitation (57).
Section: It is valid to attach zihar to conditions, such as if he says: "If you enter the house, you are to me like the back of my mother," [and "If Zayd wills, you are to me like the back of my mother"] (58). So whenever Zayd wills or she enters the house, he becomes a person who has performed zihar, otherwise not. This is the view of al-Shafi'i and the companions of the school of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y); because it is an oath, it is permissible to attach it to a condition, just like ila'. Furthermore, the essence of zihar is that it was [analogous to] divorce, and divorce is valid when attached to a condition (59), so likewise is zihar. Additionally, it is a statement by which the wife is prohibited, so it is valid to attach it to a condition, like divorce. If he says to his wife: "If I perform zihar on my other wife, you are to me like the back of my mother," then he performs zihar on the other, he becomes a person who has performed zihar on both of them. If he says: "If I perform zihar on so-and-so, the stranger, you are to me like the back of my mother," then says to the stranger: "You are to me like the back of my mother," he becomes a person who has performed zihar on his wife, according to those who hold the view that zihar can be performed on a stranger, and those who do not, do not. We will mention that [in its place] (60), if Allah Almighty wills.
Section: If he says: "You are to me like the back of my mother, if Allah wills," his zihar does not take effect. Ahmad explicitly stated this, saying: If he says to his wife: "You are to me like the back of my mother, if Allah wills," then there is nothing upon him; it is (61) an oath. And if he says: "Whatever Allah has made lawful for me is forbidden for me, if Allah wills," and he has a family, it is an oath, and there is nothing upon him. This is the view of al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and the companions of the school of opinion. We do not know of any disagreement with them from others; this is because it is an expiatory oath, so the exception (istithna') is valid within it, just as it is for an oath by Allah Almighty, or like prohibiting his property. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Whoever takes an oath and says 'If Allah wills,' there is no breach of oath upon him." Reported by al-Tirmidhi (62), who said: It is a hasan gharib hadith. In another wording: "Whoever"
(57) In (A), (B), and (M): "al-waqt" (the time). (58) Omitted from the original. A note for consideration. (59) In (A): "bi-al-shurut" (with conditions). (60) Omitted from (A), (B), and (M). (61) In (A): "huwa". (62) In: The Chapter on What Has Been Said Regarding Exception in an Oath, from the Chapters of Vows. 'Aridat al-Ahwadhi 7/12-14.
طاوُسٍ، فلا مَعْنًى لِقَوْلِه: يَصِحُّ الظِّهارُ مُؤَقَّتًا؛ لِعَدَمِ تَأْثِيرِ التَّأْقيتِ (٥٧).
فصل: ويصحُّ تَعْلِيقُ الظِّهارِ بالشُّرُوطِ، نحو أَنْ يقولَ: إنْ دَخَلْتِ الدَّارَ، فأنتِ علىَّ كظَهْرِ أُمِّى، [وإِنْ شاءَ زَيْدٌ، فأنتِ علىَّ كظهرِ أمِّى] (٥٨). فَمَتَى شاءَ زيدٌ أو دَخَلَتِ الدَّارَ، صارَ مُظَاهِرًا، وإلَّا فلا. وبهذا قال الشَّافِعِىُّ، وأصحابُ الرَّأْىِ؛ لأنَّه يَمِينٌ، فجازَ تَعْلِيقُه على شَرْطٍ كالإِيلاءِ، ولأنَّ أصْلَ الظِّهارِ أنَّه كان طَلاقًا، والطَّلاقُ يصحُّ تعليقُه بالشَّرْطِ (٥٩)، فكذلك الظِّهارُ، ولأنَّه قَوْلٌ تَحْرُمُ به الزَّوجةُ، فَصَحَّ تعليقُه على شَرْطٍ كالطَّلاقِ. ولو قال لامرأتِه: إن تظاهَرْتُ مِن امرأتِى الأُخْرَى، فأنتِ علىَّ كظهرِ أُمِّى. ثمَّ تَظاهَرَ مِن الأُخْرَى، صارَ مُظاهِرًا منهما جميعًا. وإِنْ قال: إنْ تَظاهَرْتُ مِن فلانة الأجْنبِيَّةِ، فأنتِ علىَّ كظهرِ أُمِّى. ثمَّ قال للأجْنبيَّةِ: أنتِ علىَّ كظهرِ أمِّى. صارَ مُظاهرًا من امرأتِه، عندَ مَنْ يَرَى الظِّهارَ مِن الأجْنَبيَّةِ، ومَنْ لا فَلا. وسَنَذْكُرُ ذلك [فى مَوْضِعِه] (٦٠)، إن شاءَ اللَّهُ تعالى.
فصل: فإنْ قال: أنتِ علىَّ كظهرِ أُمِّى، إنْ شاءَ اللَّهُ. لم يَنْعَقِدْ ظِهارُه. نصَّ عليه أحمدُ، فقال: إذا قال لامرأتِه: عليه كظَهْرِ أُمِّه إنْ شاءَ اللَّهُ، فليس عليه شىءٌ، هى (٦١) يَمِينٌ. وإذا قال: ما أحَلَّ اللَّهُ علىَّ حرامٌ، إنْ شاء اللَّهُ. وله أهلٌ، هى يمينٌ، ليس عليه شىءٌ. وبهذا قال الشَّافِعِىُّ، وأبو ثَوْرٍ، وأصْحابُ الرَّأْىِ. ولا نعلمُ عن غيرِهم خِلافَهم؛ وذلك لأنَّها يَمِينٌ مُكَفَّرَةٌ، فصحَّ الاستثناءُ فيها، كاليَمِينِ باللَّهِ تعالى، أو كَتَحْرِيمِ مالِه. وقد قال النَّبِىُّ -صلى اللَّه عليه وسلم-: "مَنْ حَلَفَ عَلَى يَمِينٍ، فقالَ: إنْ شاءَ اللَّهُ. فلا حِنْثَ عليه". رواه التِّرْمِذِىُّ (٦٢)، وقال: حديثٌ حسنٌ غريبٌ. وفى لفظٍ: "مَنْ
(٥٧) فى أ، ب، م: "الوقت".(٥٨) سقط من: الأصل. نقل نظر.(٥٩) فى أ: "بالشروط".(٦٠) سقط من: أ، ب، م.(٦١) فى أ: "هو".(٦٢) فى: باب ما جاء فى الاستثناء فى اليمين، من أبواب النذور. عارضة الأحوذى ٧/ ١٢ - ١٤. =